Author: Bo Persson
Date: 11:09:31 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2001 at 11:30:02, Paul Petersson wrote: >On March 24, 2001 at 07:52:38, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>Why are people always trying to do unsound things? I see no sense in overlocking >>a CPU. I rather prefer a stable system than a somewhat faster CPU. >>Regards >>Kurt > >Is it better when Intel and AMD do it themselves. AMD did it on some K6 CPUs and >Intel did it on the P3-1133. And it was recalled because it didn't work... :-) It is actually better when Intel *underclock* the processors, like selling the Celeron as 300/66 when it worked just as well at 450/100. That's real value for money! >If you can overclock a processor up to 70 percent and still get it to run >reliably, then it's definitely worth the effort. > >Paul Overclocking a top-of-the-line model is probably *not* such a good idea, as Intel would definitely do that if at all possible. Reliability and/or expected life of the chip will be much lower. Don't you think Intel would rather sell the 1.5 GHz version as 2.0 GHz if they thought it would work?? (and live thru the warranty period...) Bo Persson bop@malmo.mail.telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.